posted
There is a better case for the pre-Columbian presence of whites in America than what Clyde posits for Black Native Americans. In an outline
1) There are more Native Americans with white haplotypes than Black Native Americans. Seventy percent of Mexicans and millions in the USA are White Native Americans.
2) The Kennewick skeleton proves the presence of whites before Columbus
3) There are real artifacts from archaeologically controlled excavations – no artifact from Africa has ever been found in archaeologically controlled excavation in the New World.
5) There is more credible path to the New World in Dennis Stanford Solutrean Propoal- than in declarations without detailed pathways from the Mande to the New World.
6) Wiercinski found more 1(8.3%) whites in Tlatilco than blacks (13.5%). Other places: Monte Alban 25% white, 4.2 black; Teotihuacan 25% whites, 0.00 blacks; Maya Yucatan 16.2 whites, 1.4% Blacks; cerro las Mesas 4.5% whites, 4.5% blacks.
7) Wuthenau (the source of many images used) has many more figurines and carvings that he fervently avers are white (Semitic, European) than images of blacks.
8) For years, Winters has been citing R. Lisker, E. Ramirez, and V. Babinsky. 1996. “Genetic Structure of Autochtonous populations of Mesoamerica:Mexico,” Human Biology[ 68 (#3): 395-404. (properly cited)
group Black Native Americans White Native Americans (using Winters’s Nomenclature) Black White Paraiso 0.217 --- 0.309 El Carmen0.284 --- 0.284 Veracruz 0.256--- 0.350 Saladero 0.302 --- 0.312 Tamiahua 0.405 --- 0.288
Tamiahua is the only sample that has more Black Native Americans than White Native Americans
9. Loans to Maya languages are a better match than Winters’s and I keep all the glottal stops and long vowels essential to Maya pronunciation and which Winters omits.
Loans to Yucatek Maya
Spanish Maya English deber > debčer > should cebolla > sebňoyah > onion hora > ʔňorah > hour más > mŕas > more santo > sŕantoh > saint familia > faáměilyáah > family escuela > ‘eéskwčeláah > school ahora > ‘aáwrah now tacos > tŕakos > tacos amigo > 7aámigóoh > friend almúd > můut > ‘measure hierb > yéerbah > (type of plant’) arroz > 7áaros > ‘ice’ cucaracha > kůuruc > cockroach
Loans to Kakchiquel Spanish Maya English ajo > anx > garlic arveja > arwenxa > pea caja > kax/kaxa > box jabon > xab7/xab7on > soap jarra > xara > jar camisa > kamixa > shirt Castellano > kaxlan > Spanish dios > tyox > god silla > gala > chair vaca > b7ak/waka > cow pato > patx/pat > i duck llave > lave/law > key botica > patike > pharmacy burro > b7ur > donkey
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Just goes to show, as with the Albino reaction to Obama's success's: the better you do, the crazier and more desperate their responses to you.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just goes to show, as with the Albino reaction to Obama's success's: the better you do, the crazier and more desperate their responses to you.
Please point out my flaws-- with evidence if possible.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
2) The Kennewick skeleton proves the presence of whites before Columbus
If the Kennewick was determined to have Native American DNA and Native Americans are browned skinned, why are you calling him white?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Stop, there are no true White Native Americans. Whites don't have to stoop to the Black racist Afrocentric Black supremacists on this forum to have something to be proud of. No need to steal what belongs to Native Americans.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Quetzalcoatl,
Stop, there are no true White Native Americans. Whites don't have to stoop to the Black racist Afrocentric Black supremacists on this forum to have something to be proud of. No need to steal what belongs to Native Americans.
.
"Whites don't have to stoop to the Black racist Afrocentric Black supremacists on this forum to have something to be proud of."
2) The Kennewick skeleton proves the presence of whites before Columbus
If the Kennewick was determined to have Native American DNA and Native Americans are browned skinned, why are you calling him white?
Naia only has Native American DNA and is brown, why are we calling her Black? All Paleoindians so far have only had Native American DNA.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: There is a better case for the pre-Columbian presence of whites in America than what Clyde posits for Black Native Americans.
.
No question about it Quetzalcoatl, you are 100% RIGHT!
.
.
Then again, it also makes me 100% RIGHT!
Those Indians are indeed WHITE - and they are indeed ALBINOS!
Just like you Europeans - only without the "back" Black admixture - which they will get in time.
He,he,he,he,he:
.
Apache Indian and Squaw
^Damn, they sure are some Black-assed Niggers - Huh Quetzalcoatl?
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just goes to show, as with the Albino reaction to Obama's success's: the better you do, the crazier and more desperate their responses to you.
Please point out my flaws-- with evidence if possible.
There are two major flaws in your evidence. Number 1, the Spanish cognition with Mayan languages is easily explained by 400 years of colonialism. Secondly, the PaleoAmericans were Negroid.
quote:
The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution."
posted
Mike nope, that's your's & your ilk's forte. Mike cut the bull those people are NOT White nor will they ever be. They are Amerindians just like every other Amerindian the same people.
Posts: 3257 | From: Madisonville, KY USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Just goes to show, as with the Albino reaction to Obama's success's: the better you do, the crazier and more desperate their responses to you."
Obama ???? No Mike. What's getting to them now is the prospect of Carson !
Flawless resume, family, good looking, and so far not a classless lout like Trump.
He will eventually beat Trump. (Not withstanding the Doxie types, the better Whites will not allow a man like Trump to represent country internationally.....).
They are trying to show that they are not the degenerate racists that I, and all intelligent people, know them to be - he will be dumped at the right time.
Btw - ever hear of Clarence Thomas?
He is also a Black republican - George Wallace did less damage to Black people than that piece of sh1t.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
There are two major flaws in your evidence. Number 1, the Spanish cognition with Mayan languages is easily explained by 400 years of colonialism. Secondly, the PaleoAmericans were Negroid.
quote:
The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution. Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-12000-year-old-skeleton-helps-answer-question-who-were-first-americans-180951469/#c5eozJbpvzOVEioQ.99
You lose.
.Exactly-- and ] ALL the African genes found in Black Native Americans can also be attributed to the 500 years of contact between Africans brought as slaves and Native Americans who were here. In logic this fallacy is called the excluded middle the choice is NOT between African genes came before Columbus OR not. The middle is African genes hybridized with Native Americans to create your Black Native Americans (BNA) a much more likely event and preferred under Occam's Razor. My White Native Americans have the exactly the same problem as yours.
2) you can sing, spin and quote suppositions BUT There is no "African-looking" Paleoindian that has anything but Native American genes-- which are the only real way to prove descent. Further the two latest studies come to the conclusion that the Lagoa Santa ((Luzia) skulls come into the range of variation of indigenous Native Americans.
This logical error is called "circular Reasoning" where you assert as evidence something that needs be proven. You can't say all the African genes we find in "Black Native Americans" are here because Paleoindians have them. TILT You have not proven that old skulls that were said to resemble Africans, or Australians are ,in fact, African or Australian-- thus there is no proof that the first assertion is correct. BTW nowadays these skulls are said to resemble Austrralians or but no longer African.
There a later paper by Chatters in which he no longer speculates but rather clearly states that Paleoindians developed in situ and did not need a separate ancestry
Chatters, J.C. et al 2014 “Late Pleistocene Human Skeleton and mtDNA Link Paleoamericans and Modern Native Americans,” Science 344: 6750-754
quote:Because of differences in craniofacial morphology and dentition between the earliest American skeletons and modern Native Americans, separate origins have been postulated for them, despite genetic evidence to the contrary. We describe a near-complete human skeleton with an intact cranium and preserved DNA found with extinct fauna in a submerged cave on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. This skeleton dates to between 13,000 and 12,000 calendar years ago and has Paleoamerican craniofacial characteristics and a Beringian-derived mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup (D1). Thus, the differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans probably resulted from in situ evolution rather than separate ancestry.
The two most recent papers also have evidence against any foreign population mixing with Native Americans.
Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,” sciencemag.org/content/early/recent /23 July 2015 / Page 1-20 / 10.1126/science.aab3884
quote: More importantly, our analyses demonstrated that the presumed ancestral ancient Paleoamerican reference sample from Lagoa Santa, Brazil (24) had closest affinities to Arctic and East Asian populations (table S15). Consequently, for the Fuego-Patagonians, the female Pericúes and the Lagoa Santa Paleoamerican sample, we were not able to replicate previous results, that report close similarity of Paleoamerican and Australo-Melanesian cranial morphologies. . . . . . Our morphometric analyses suggest that these ancient samples are not true relicts of a distinct migration, as claimed, and hence do not support the Paleoamerican model. Similarly, our genomic data also provide no support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas.
Skoglund, P. et al 2015 “Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas,” Nature 525: 104-108
quote:However, we do find that a model where Amazonians receive ancestry from the lineage leading to the Andamanese fits the data in the sense that the predicted f4-statistics are all within two standard errors of statistics computed on the empirical data (Extended Data Figs 6 and 7 and Extended Data Table 3). These results do not imply that an unmixed population related anciently to Australasians migrated to the Americas. Although this is a formal possibility, an alternative model that we view as more plausible is that the ‘Population Y’ (after Ypykuéra, which means ‘ancestor’ in the Tupi language family spoken by the Suruí and Karitiana) that contributed Australasian-related ancestry to Amazonians was already mixed with a lineage related to First Americans at the time it reached Amazonia. When we model such a scenario, we obtain a fit for models that specify 2–85% of the ancestry of the Suruí, Karitiana and Xavante as coming from Population Y (Fig. 2). These results show that quite a high fraction of Amazonian ancestry today might be derived from Population Y. At the same time, the results constrain the fraction of Amazonian ancestry that comes from an Australasian related population (via Population Y) to a much tighter range of 1–2% (Fig. 2).
News report compares the two Balter, M. 2015 “New mystery for Native American origins,” Science 349: 354-355./
quote:The Science results also counter the Paleoamerican model. When the team sequenced the DNA of 17 individuals from the extinct South American populations with the distinctive skulls, they found no trace of Australo-Melanesian ancestry. “The analysis refutes a very simplistic view of [skull] variation,” comments anthropologist Rolando Gonzalez-Jose of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Puerto Madryn, Argentina.
posted
"They are trying to show that they are not the degenerate racists that I, and all intelligent people, know them to be - he will be dumped at the right time.'
Maybe. But Carson is no Clarence. He knows that he is Black, gives back thru his scholarship fund...Dont dump all Black repubs in the same pile.
He will receive at least 25% of the Black vote. Younger Blacks are not slaves to the Democratic party.
He will get half the White vote. Republican White will rather die than see Hilary in office and the more intelligent whites will turn from Trump.
Carson barring any skeletons in his closet will win.
Or If Trump is able to endure, if Carson goes on as his running mate then it is a slam dunk.
Carson will be President or Vice President.
(Facial hair issue os easily fixed)
-------------------- Keldal Posts: 2818 | From: new york | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^So you believe that those millions of Albino males (the overwhelming majority) who hate Obama simply because he is Black, AND DID NOT FAIL, will really vote for another competent Black?
In case you don't know it, that's who the Republican party is (White Males) - ANGRY White males!
Why are they angry?
The racist lies that their reality, history, sense-of-self, is based on, are falling apart. Obama was just the latest thumb in the eye.
As far as Hillary goes:
You forget that during the 2012 campaign the Clinton's were the darlings of Albinos:
Why?
Because Obama was faltering, and needed their help. His weakness and their strength at the time made them (the Clinton's) lovable to Albinos.
The U.S. is a complicated place - learn to respect that fact. Btw, "Native" Black failure to understand, and react to that fact, at the lower levels, is the primary reason for their condition: (as compared to immigrant Blacks).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just goes to show, as with the Albino reaction to Obama's success's: the better you do, the crazier and more desperate their responses to you.
Please point out my flaws-- with evidence if possible.
There are two major flaws in your evidence. Number 1, the Spanish cognition with Mayan languages is easily explained by 400 years of colonialism. Secondly, the PaleoAmericans were Negroid.
.....
You lose.
. [/QUOTE]
Found in Southern Illinois
quote: Cahokia, Illinois is the home of the largest pyramid in North America. According to Dr. Kaba Hiawatha Kemene (Dr. Booker T. Coleman) the Mississippi River was to America what the Nile River was to Africa and that there were 110 pyramids along the Mississippi. Indian "mounds" are the remnants of pyramids.
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
There are two major flaws in your evidence. Number 1, the Spanish cognition with Mayan languages is easily explained by 400 years of colonialism. Secondly, the PaleoAmericans were Negroid.
quote:
The small number of early American specimens discovered so far have smaller and shorter faces and longer and narrower skulls than later Native Americans, more closely resembling the modern people of Africa, Australia, and the South Pacific. "This has led to speculation that perhaps the first Americans and Native Americans came from different homelands," Chatters continues, "or migrated from Asia at different stages in their evolution. Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-12000-year-old-skeleton-helps-answer-question-who-were-first-americans-180951469/#c5eozJbpvzOVEioQ.99
You lose.
.Exactly-- and ] ALL the African genes found in Black Native Americans can also be attributed to the 500 years of contact between Africans brought as slaves and Native Americans who were here. In logic this fallacy is called the excluded middle the choice is NOT between African genes came before Columbus OR not. The middle is African genes hybridized with Native Americans to create your Black Native Americans (BNA) a much more likely event and preferred under Occam's Razor. My White Native Americans have the exactly the same problem as yours.
2) you can sing, spin and quote suppositions BUT There is no "African-looking" Paleoindian that has anything but Native American genes-- which are the only real way to prove descent. Further the two latest studies come to the conclusion that the Lagoa Santa ((Luzia) skulls come into the range of variation of indigenous Native Americans.
This logical error is called "circular Reasoning" where you assert as evidence something that needs be proven. You can't say all the African genes we find in "Black Native Americans" are here because Paleoindians have them. TILT You have not proven that old skulls that were said to resemble Africans, or Australians are ,in fact, African or Australian-- thus there is no proof that the first assertion is correct. BTW nowadays these skulls are said to resemble Austrralians or but no longer African.
There a later paper by Chatters in which he no longer speculates but rather clearly states that Paleoindians developed in situ and did not need a separate ancestry
Chatters, J.C. et al 2014 “Late Pleistocene Human Skeleton and mtDNA Link Paleoamericans and Modern Native Americans,” Science 344: 6750-754
quote:Because of differences in craniofacial morphology and dentition between the earliest American skeletons and modern Native Americans, separate origins have been postulated for them, despite genetic evidence to the contrary. We describe a near-complete human skeleton with an intact cranium and preserved DNA found with extinct fauna in a submerged cave on Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula. This skeleton dates to between 13,000 and 12,000 calendar years ago and has Paleoamerican craniofacial characteristics and a Beringian-derived mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup (D1). Thus, the differences between Paleoamericans and Native Americans probably resulted from in situ evolution rather than separate ancestry.
The two most recent papers also have evidence against any foreign population mixing with Native Americans.
Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,” sciencemag.org/content/early/recent /23 July 2015 / Page 1-20 / 10.1126/science.aab3884
quote: More importantly, our analyses demonstrated that the presumed ancestral ancient Paleoamerican reference sample from Lagoa Santa, Brazil (24) had closest affinities to Arctic and East Asian populations (table S15). Consequently, for the Fuego-Patagonians, the female Pericúes and the Lagoa Santa Paleoamerican sample, we were not able to replicate previous results, that report close similarity of Paleoamerican and Australo-Melanesian cranial morphologies. . . . . . Our morphometric analyses suggest that these ancient samples are not true relicts of a distinct migration, as claimed, and hence do not support the Paleoamerican model. Similarly, our genomic data also provide no support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas.
Skoglund, P. et al 2015 “Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas,” Nature 525: 104-108
quote:However, we do find that a model where Amazonians receive ancestry from the lineage leading to the Andamanese fits the data in the sense that the predicted f4-statistics are all within two standard errors of statistics computed on the empirical data (Extended Data Figs 6 and 7 and Extended Data Table 3). These results do not imply that an unmixed population related anciently to Australasians migrated to the Americas. Although this is a formal possibility, an alternative model that we view as more plausible is that the ‘Population Y’ (after Ypykuéra, which means ‘ancestor’ in the Tupi language family spoken by the Suruí and Karitiana) that contributed Australasian-related ancestry to Amazonians was already mixed with a lineage related to First Americans at the time it reached Amazonia. When we model such a scenario, we obtain a fit for models that specify 2–85% of the ancestry of the Suruí, Karitiana and Xavante as coming from Population Y (Fig. 2). These results show that quite a high fraction of Amazonian ancestry today might be derived from Population Y. At the same time, the results constrain the fraction of Amazonian ancestry that comes from an Australasian related population (via Population Y) to a much tighter range of 1–2% (Fig. 2).
News report compares the two Balter, M. 2015 “New mystery for Native American origins,” Science 349: 354-355./
quote:The Science results also counter the Paleoamerican model. When the team sequenced the DNA of 17 individuals from the extinct South American populations with the distinctive skulls, they found no trace of Australo-Melanesian ancestry. “The analysis refutes a very simplistic view of [skull] variation,” comments anthropologist Rolando Gonzalez-Jose of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Puerto Madryn, Argentina.
The papers prove nothing. Raghavan et al. (2015) did not study ancient DNA they analyzed whole genome sequences of 31 present day individuals from the Americas. These tell us nothing about the prehistoric populations. Plus we know that other researchers have found evidence of a relationship so the study is flawed. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
The papers prove nothing. Raghavan et al. (2015) did not study ancient DNA they analyzed whole genome sequences of 31 present day individuals from the Americas. These tell us nothing about the prehistoric populations. Plus we know that other researchers have found evidence of a relationship so the study is flawed. .
Clyde, I can’t believe that you don’t know this! Aparently you are going to your old practice of using ink like the octopus and/or throwing things at a wall to see if they will stick.
quote:The first article in Science, “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans” by Raghaven et al published this week provides the following summary ...): How and when the Americas were populated remains contentious. Using ANCIENT and modern genome-wide data, we find that the ancestors of all present-day Native Americans, including Athabascans and Amerindians, entered the Americas as a single migration wave from Siberia no earlier than 23 thousand years ago (KYA), and after no more than 8,000-year isolation period in Beringia. Following their arrival to the Americas, ancestral Native Americans diversified into two basal genetic branches around 13 KYA, one that is now dispersed across North and South America and the other is restricted to North America. Subsequent gene flow resulted in some Native Americans sharing ancestry with present-day East Asians (including Siberians) and, more distantly, Australo-Melanesians. Putative ‘Paleoamerican’ relict populations, including the historical Mexican Pericúes and South American Fuego-Patagonians, are not directly related to modern Australo-Melanesians as suggested by the Paleoamerican Model. . . . . . The researchers also state that they utilized 17 specimens from relict groups such as the Pericues from Mexico and Fuego-Patagonians from the southernmost tip of South America. They also sequenced two pre-Columbian mummies from the Sierra Tarahumara in northern Mexico. In total, 23 ancient samples from the Americas were utilized. They then compared these results with a reference panel of 3053 individuals from 169 populations which included the ancient Saqqaq Greenland individual at 400 years of age as well as the Anzick child from Montana from about 12,500 years ago and the Mal’ta child from Siberia at 24,000 years of age.
See that full genome was used to verify mtDNA because a full genome INCLUDES mtDNA And Y-Chromosome and a lot more. also notice thaT NO REFERENCE WAS MADE TO AFRICA AS A POSSIBILITY.
Continuing:
quote: The researchers suggest that the variance in the strength of this Oceanic signal suggests that the introduction of the Australo-Melanese occurred after the initial peopling of the Americas. The ancient samples cluster with the Native American groups and do not show the Oceanic markers and show no evidence of gene flow from Oceana. The researchers also included cranial morphology analysis, which I am omitting since cranial morphology seems to have led researchers astray in the past, specifically in the case of Kennewick man. One of the reasons cranial morphology is such a hotly debated topic is because of the very high degree of cranial variance found in early skeletal remains. One of the theories evolving from the cranial differences involving the populating of the Americans has been that the Australo-Melanese were part of a separate and earlier migration that gave rise to the earliest Americans who were then later replaced by the Asian ancestors of current day Native Americans. If this were the case, then the now-extinct Fuego-Patagonains samples from the location furthest south on the South American land mass should have included DNA from Oceana, but it didn’t.[QUOTE/]
You say others disagree-- please post exact quotes with full references of the peer reviewed articles that disagree.
Meanwhile, where are the African genes in these ancient cases?
Skoglund, P. et al 2015 “Genetic evidence for two founding population of the Americas,” Nature 525: 104-108
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Lion, do you have any info. on this piece?
i.e. where, when, found: how old is it, which tribe it represents.
Burrow's cave find. As usual albinos try to deny the authenticity...
A black man discovers an important ancient cave dweliing and this is the thanks he get, damn
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Just goes to show, as with the Albino reaction to Obama's success's: the better you do, the crazier and more desperate their responses to you.
Please point out my flaws-- with evidence if possible.
You're supposed to be a pro? Hah! Montellano quit your crackering (er - um - uh -- I meant quackery) and get off your racialist pink ass and do the simplest of research for yourself instead of relying on the authority appeal that you don't have.
quote:There was not enough information to assign Kennewick Man to a particular Native American tribe, but the researchers discovered that Kennewick Man was closely related to members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quetzalcoatl you messed up with this"white" thread and dissed the Indians, you need to do a retraction and quit this thread
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No different than when he dissed AmerInds decades ago saying they'd've killed cooked and ate Africans appearing on the Americas shores.
Yup, he put his white sheet on when he broached this thread.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whites and their Indo-Aryan Indian partners love to lie about the history of Black and African people. This is evident in Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,” http://www.researchgate.net/publication/280841721_Genomic_evidence_for_the_Pleistocene_and_recent_population_history_of_Native_Americans Raghavan et al (2015), provides abundant double-speech that is truly misleading and outright lies. Neves et al has made it clear that there is a difference between Paleoamericans who were Negroid, and contemporary Indians that are mongoloid. Raghavan et al (2015) are attempting to prove that there is continuity between the contemporary mongoloid Indians and paleoamericans. In the conclusion of the article the authors write:
quote: The data presented here are consistent with a single initial migration of all Native Americans and with later gene flow from sources related to East Asians and, more distantly, Australo-Melanesians. From that single migration, there was a diversification of ancestral Native Americans leading to the formation of ‘northern’ and ‘southern’ branches, which appears to have taken place ca. 13 KYA within the Americas.
quote:” We, therefore, sequenced 17 ancient individuals affiliated to the now-extinct Pericúes from Mexico and FuegoPatagonians from Chile and Argentina (28), who, on the basis of their distinctive skull morphologies, are claimed to be relicts of Paleoamericans (23, 27, 58, 59). Additionally, we sequenced two pre-Columbian mummies from northern Mexico (Sierra Tarahumara) to serve as morphological controls, since they are expected to fall within the range of Native American morphological cranial variation (28). We found that the ancient samples cluster with other Native American groups and are outside the range of Oceanian genetic variation (28) (Fig. 5 and figs. S32, S33, and S34). Similarly, outgroup f3 statistics (47) reveal low shared genetic ancestry between the ancient samples and Oceanians (28) (Figs. S36, S37), and genome-based and masked SNP chip genotype data-based D-statistics (46, 47) show no evidence for gene flow from Oceanians into the Pericúes or FuegoPatagonians (28) (fig. S39).”
This was not a surprising finding because none of these skeletal remains date back to Paleoamerican times. Raghaven et al, write
quote: Consequently, for the Fuego-Patagonians, the female Pericúes and the Lagoa Santa Paleoamerican sample, we were not able to replicate previous results (24) that report close similarity of Paleoamerican and AustraloMelanesian cranial morphologies. We note that male Pericúes samples displayed more craniometric affinities with populations from Africa and Australia relative to the female individuals of their population (fig. S41). The results of analyses based on craniometric data are, thus, highly sensitive to sample structure and the statistical approach and data filtering used (51). Our morphometric analyses suggest that these ancient samples are not true relicts of a distinct migration, as claimed, and hence do not support the Paleoamerican model. Similarly, our genomic data also provide no support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas.
This statement is double speech, the authors declare that there is ” no support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas “ ; while in the same “paragraph the authors say ” We note that male Pericúes samples displayed more craniometric affinities with populations from Africa and Australia relative to the female individuals of their population “. If the “craniometric affinities [are] with populations from Africa and Australia “, this is support for an early migration of populations directly related to Australo-Melanesians into the Americas, and directly contradict what the authors have written. Moreover, the paintings of California Indians show a clear Melanesian influence.
.
.
Raghaven et al, also note that
quote: We found that some American populations, including the Aleutian Islanders, Surui, and Athabascans are closer to Australo-Melanesians compared to other Native Americans,such as North American Ojibwa, Cree and Algonquin, and the South American Purepecha, Arhuaco and Wayuu (fig.S10). The Surui are, in fact, one of closest Native American populations to East Asians and Australo-Melanesians, the latter including Papuans, non-Papuan Melanesians, Solomon Islanders, and South East Asian hunter-gatherers such as Aeta (fig. S10). We acknowledge that this observation is based on the analysis of a small fraction of the whole genome and SNP chip genotype datasets, especially for the Aleutian Islander data that is heavily masked due to recent admixture with Europeans (28), and that the trends in the data are weak. Nonetheless, if it proves correct, these results suggest there may be a distant Old World signal related to AustraloMelanesians and East Asians in some Native Americans. The widely scattered and differential affinity of Native Americans to the Australo-Melanesians, ranging from a strong signal in the Surui to much weaker signal in northern Amerindians such as Ojibwa, points to this gene flow occurring after the initial peopling by Native American ancestors.
In conclusion, Raghaven et al, argue that there is continuity between the contemporary and modern Native American populations but the evidence they present for this hypothesis fails to support this hypothesis. It appears that the craniometrics evidence and genetic evidence does not agree, and the contemporary and modern Native Americans represent distinct populations as suggested by Neves.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
You're supposed to be a pro? Hah! Montellano quit your crackering (er - um - uh -- I meant quackery) and get off your racialist pink ass and do the simplest of research for yourself instead of relying on the authority appeal that you don't have.
quote:There was not enough information to assign Kennewick Man to a particular Native American tribe, but the researchers discovered that Kennewick Man was closely related to members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation in Washington.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Yes. Kennewick man is Y-chromosome Q-M3 and mtDNA- X2a.
It was easy to disprove me. Here again is the list of all the ancient Indians from which mtDNA has been found-- Where are the haplotypes that show that paleoindians had African haplotypes that passed on to Black Native Americans instead of Black Native Americans getting those genes during the last 500 years when WE KNOW black Africans were here?
population Age BP mtDNA
Pericue 800-300 B2g1,CZ,B2g1,C1c1, CZ,B2g1
Mummies >500 C,C1b
Fuego-Patagonia 132 D 4h3a,D4h3a,D4h3a,D1g,D4h3a Kaweskar
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Quetzalcoatl you messed up with this"white" thread and dissed the Indians, you need to do a retraction and quit this thread
What a humorless bunch. Don't you see it's didactic experiment. I'm making the same arguments as Winters has been making for years, but actually with better evidence. Strange none of you has been calling him for dissing Indians-- or pointed out the logical errors- like "excluded Middle" or "circular reasoning" The claim I made for Kennewick man is IDENTICAL to what has been made for Naia or Luzia with regard to Black Native Americans. Why don't people here apply the same rigor that you are making to verify the evidence for WNA to check out the many many Winters's quotes that are phony?
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking at ancient DNA to determine ancient population origins can be misleading. Let’s look at dna of Ust-ishim and Clovis-Anzick man as it compares to modern populations.
Although it is clear that Ust-ishim was T2b3, the popular press claims he belonged to the haplogroup U clade. Look at the cousins of Ust-ishim it is these modern people who belong to the U clade that are his cousins. See: http://www.fi.id.au/2014/11/ust-ishim-ancient-dna-has-matches-with.html
Look at the Clovis-Anzick DNA matches to modern people.
What does this mean? It means that researchers may be reporting results that have been contaminated and that they may only be giving us results that match their expectations of how the data should look.
IN relation to Anzick man Felix Immanuel noted that:
quote:
Just a quick recap, I processed the raw data for Clovis-Anzick-1 and uploaded into GEDMatch and to my surprise, there are matches as near as 3rd to 4th cousins. Now, that's a real problem because, the matches are to a DNA sample older than 12500 years. This is practically impossible and very mysterious.[/img] I will investigate step-by-step and see what are all the possibilities and failure points, which could solve the problem. But before that, we need to be absolutely sure that these matches are indeed valid. From the matches, I requested for phased kit and I indeed got one - Thanks to Mario Diaz and Veronica.
Clearly, an IBD segment of 5 cM above 500 SNPs with total IBD segments around 10+ cM cannot be 12500 years old. This is a fact and can be verified using known relationships in families and DNA companies are using these benchmarks all along for showing genetic matches. This fact is more than enough to conclude that the Clovis-Anzick-1 sample is not actually ancient. My best guess is, the infant boy's sample is just from the last century and it was wrongly labeled as 12500 years old or the sample got contaminated.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Quetzalcoatl you messed up with this"white" thread and dissed the Indians, you need to do a retraction and quit this thread
What a humorless bunch. Don't you see it's didactic experiment. I'm making the same arguments as Winters has been making for years, but actually with better evidence. Strange none of you has been calling him for dissing Indians-- or pointed out the logical errors- like "excluded Middle" or "circular reasoning" The claim I made for Kennewick man is IDENTICAL to what has been made for Naia or Luzia with regard to Black Native Americans. Why don't people here apply the same rigor that you are making to verify the evidence for WNA to check out the many many Winters's quotes that are phony?
two wrongs don't make a right, even as rhertoric
satire has to be clear, leave it to the master
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Racist Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wants us to believe that since Naia is suppose to be carrying haplogroup D, she is a modern Mongoloid Native American eventhough her cranifacial morphology is Australian, Melanesia or African.
We don't really know if Naia is a carrier of haplogroup D, instead of M, which is a common haplogroup in Africa. Prufer and Meyer in a : Comment on “Late Pleistocene human skeleton and mtDNA link Paleoamericans and modern Native Americans”, claim Naia's DNA is contaminated. Prufer and Mayer (2015) believe that due to post mortem damage Naia’s DNA was contaminated and does not represent ancient DNA. They said: However, our analysis of postmortem damage patterns finds no evidence for an ancient origin of these sequences. "
White Supremacist like Bernard Ortiz Montellano , know that researchers believe that Naia's DNA is probably contaminated , but rather than tell the truth racist Bernard Montellano tells a white lie to deny that the PaleoAmericans were negroes.
Shame on you, racist Bernard Ortiz de Montellano. Bernard you should know that it is racist for someone to spread a lie about members of a different race, when they know the research does not support their racist claims.Stop stealing the history of the Black Native Americans.
posted
If it's so easy why'd you put it out there?
I don't know **** about supposed Black (meaning either West, Central, or Nile Valley African) Native Americans. Poor deflection effort, this is Tukuler al~Takruri you're talking to. Take that white sheet off your face, boy. Respect yourself.
You think I'm stupid as you to follow your strawman instead of staying dead on target with your white Kennewick Man crackering? You raised a point without a whiteman's chance of a long life living in the Bight of Benin.
Montellano, you dumbass backward poser of a goalpost shifting bullshitter, there's a relatively fresh Jun 2015 ancDNA report waiting for your tired pink racialist ass over on EGYPTOLOGY.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: No different than when he dissed AmerInds decades ago saying they'd've killed cooked and ate Africans appearing on the Americas shores.
Yup, he put his white sheet on when he broached this thread.
No. It is not dissing Amerindians since the Aztecs, my specialty, were without a doubt cannibals. And my quote was not just a hypothetical because we know that is what happened to some Spaniards that were shipwrecked
quote:If, perchance, some Africans had landed in the New World, rather than being regarded as gods they would probably have been sacrificed and eaten. All but the first Viking expeditions were planned, but they were repelled and driven off by the natives. The fate of unplanned expeditions would have been even worse. Davies (1979:248) points to a known instance in which "a Spanish boat with sixteen men and two women on board was wrecked on the coast of Yucatan six years before Cortés arrived; the crew were all sacrificed and ritually eaten, with the exception of Gonzalo Guerrero and Jerónimo de Aguilar who were instead enslaved by two local chieftains. Of these survivors, Guerrero had gone so far native that he adorned himself with the accoutrements of his adopted tribe, including elaborate nose plugs and earrings, and refused on any account to abandon his new life to join Cortés; even Aguilar, when first found by the Spaniards, had become indistinguishable from an Indian. Survivors of accidental landings are much more likely to adopt the local culture than to spread their own."
And they were not even Aztecs
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bernard Ortiz de Motellano you are a white supremacist and racist. You bring here lies to deny the history of the Black Native Americans.
Racist Montellano genotype and craniometrics complement each other. The fact remains that Naia's DNA was contaminated and Kennewick man carries the African haplogroup X. Moreover Kennewick man is more related to Africans, Andamanese and Melanesians, rather than mongoloid Native Americans craniometrically and genetically.
Racist Montellano you should read the Kennewick Man DNA article before you wrote the garbage herein. Kennewick is recognized as a PaleoAmerican therefore he has negro ancestry. The researchers claim the Kennewick man’s DNA is mainly related to Native Americans living in South America, rather than North America except for the Colville people on the West Coast. The researchers wrote
quote: “Despite this similarity, Anzick-1 and Kennewick Man have dissimilar genetic affinities to contemporary Native Americans. In particular, we find that Anzick-1 is more closely related to Central/Southern Native Americans than is Kennewick Man (Extended Data Fig. 5). The pattern observed in Kennewick Man is mirrored in the Colville, who also show a high affinity with Southern populations (Fig. 2c), but are most closely related to a neighbouring population in the data set (Stswecem’c; Extended Data Fig. 4c).”
The authors also noted that:
“However, the genetic affinities of Kennewick Man reveal additional complexity in the population history of the Northern lineage. The finding that Kennewick is more closely related to Southern than many Northern Native Americans (Extended Data Fig. 4) suggests the presence of an additional Northern lineage that diverged from the common ancestral population of Anzick-1 and Southern Native Americans (Fig. 3). This branch would include both Colville and other tribes of the Pacific Northwest such as the Stswecem’c, who also appear symmetric to Kennewick with Southern Native Americans (Extended Data Fig. 4).”
The Pacific coast were a mixture of mongoloid and Pacific Island negro Native Americans.
The Colville tribe which is related to Kennewick man is a Confederation of Indians who did not die of diseases or murdered by whites so they could take their land.
The Colville tribe is the name given to various Christian Native American tribes that lived at Fort Colville. They include Native American groups that were not exterminated by the whites. The twelve bands are the Methow, Okanogan, Arrow Lakes, Sanpoil, Colville, Nespelem, Chelan, Entiat, Moses-Columbia, Wenatchi, Nez Perce, and Palus. These remnants of Pacific coast tribes formerly mixed with the Black Native Americans this is obvious when we look at Ohlone people who lived in missions on the West Coast.
This means that the Colville tribe is admixed with the Black Native American tribes that formerly dominated the Pacific coast.
The authors like most Europeans attempt to lie about the negro origin of Kennewick man, the multivariate analysis of Kennewick man’s skull does not support their conclusion. The carniometric measurements also confirm the negro origin of Kenewick man. The researchers wrote:
quote: Although our individual-based craniometric analyses confirm that Kennewick Man tends to be more similar to Polynesian and Ainu peoples than to Native Americans, Kennewick Man’s pattern of craniometric affinity falls well within the range of affinity patterns evaluated for individual Native Americans (Supplementary Information 9). For example, the Arikara from North Dakota (the Native American tribe representing the geographically closest population in Howells’ data set to Kennewick), exhibit with high frequency closest affinities with Polynesians (Supplementary Information 9). Yet, the Arikara have typical Native-American mitochondrial DNA haplogroups30, as does Kennewick Man. We conclude that the currently available number of independent phenetic markers is too small, and within-population craniometric variation too large, to permit reliable reconstruction of the biological population affinities of Kennewick Man.
Arikara
Kennewick man carried mtDNA haplogroup X, this haplogroup is rare among United States Indians. This haplogroup is carried by Africans.
Amerindians carry the X hg. Amerindians and Europeans hg X are different (Person, 2004). Haplogroup X has also been found throughout Africa (Shimada et al,2006). Shimada et al (2006) believes that X(hX) is of African origin. Amerindian X is different from European hg X, skeletons from Brazil dating between 400-7000 BP have the transition np 16223 ( Martinez-Cruzado, 2001; Ribeiro-Dos-Santos,1996). Transition np 16223 is characteristic of African haplogroups. This suggest that Africans may have taken the X hg to the Americas in ancient times. This transference is supported by the haplogroups carried by Kennewick man.
Racist Bernard Ortiz Montellano your white supremacist ideas about the inability of Blacks to travel to America will not be accepted here. Racist Montellano stop trying to steal the history of the Black Native Americans.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The paleoamericans were not mongoloid , the multivariate standard deviations of the paleoamericans are within the phenotypic range of the African, Australian and or Polynesian populations that belong to the Black/Negro Variety (Neaves and Pucciarelli, 1991; Neves, Powell and Ozolins, 1999; Powell and Neves, 1999; Powell, 2005).
Posts: 7419 | From: North America | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"A stunning discovery by US and Brazilian geneticists has provided definitive evidence for a controversial theory that the Siberian ancestors of modern Native Americans were not the first people to colonise the Americas.
A team of US and Brazilian geneticists, led by Dr David Reich, of Harvard Medical School’s Department of Genetics, has shown that members of the Surui, Karitiana and Xavante peoples of Brazil’s Amazonia region, carry distinctive DNA sequences that identify them as the descendants of an earlier wave of colonists known as the Australoids.
These people, said to have left Africa 50,000 years ago, are related to Australia’s Aborigines, the Onge people of India’s Andaman Islands, and Papua New Guineans.
Dr Reich and his colleagues have also identified Australoid genetic motifs in the indigenous Mixe people of the eastern Highlands of Mexico’s Oaxaca state.
Until recently, most genetic evidence from studies of modern Native Americans, and ancient skeletal remains, indicated that North and South American peoples were descendants of a single founding population of ancient Siberians, related to the latter-day Chukchi peoples of eastern Siberia.
But linguistic evidence, and studies of the morphology of several ancient skulls from both North and South America, offered hints that the colonisation of the Americas was a more complex process, involving at least two, possibly three waves of colonisation.
One of the most distinctive ancient skulls from the Americas was discovered by a French-Brazilian archaeological team in Vermelho Cave, near Belo Horizonte in south-eastern Brazil in 1973.
The skull, that of a young woman dubbed “Luzia”, yielded a radiocarbon age of 10,030 years. Its narrow, oval cranium with a projecting face and lower chin, resembled the skulls of modern Australoid peoples like Australia’s Aborigines, Melanesians, and the various South-east Asian peoples."
What we have seen is Ladino Africans summarily setting up their own polity among AmerInds adopting pieces of their culture.
What a little man you are attempting to throw "authority" weight around when you are pathetically outdated and know nothing about continuing education which you need worse than Trump needs a toupee. You sir are no authority in anything just a poke resting his stake as an anti- vanSertima pundit now focusing on Winters (of a whole different class than vanSertima though you consistently confuse the two, yeah I know we're all the same to pink ass sheet wearing racialists like y o u. )
quote:Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl:
quote:Originally posted by ausar: No different than when he dissed AmerInds decades ago saying they'd've killed cooked and ate Africans appearing on the Americas shores.
Yup, he put his white sheet on when he broached this thread.
No. It is not dissing Amerindians since the Aztecs, my specialty, were without a doubt cannibals. And my quote was not just a hypothetical because we know that is what happened to some Spaniards that were shipwrecked
quote:If, perchance, some Africans had landed in the New World, rather than being regarded as gods they would probably have been sacrificed and eaten. All but the first Viking expeditions were planned, but they were repelled and driven off by the natives. The fate of unplanned expeditions would have been even worse. Davies (1979:248) points to a known instance in which "a Spanish boat with sixteen men and two women on board was wrecked on the coast of Yucatan six years before Cortés arrived; the crew were all sacrificed and ritually eaten, with the exception of Gonzalo Guerrero and Jerónimo de Aguilar who were instead enslaved by two local chieftains. Of these survivors, Guerrero had gone so far native that he adorned himself with the accoutrements of his adopted tribe, including elaborate nose plugs and earrings, and refused on any account to abandon his new life to join Cortés; even Aguilar, when first found by the Spaniards, had become indistinguishable from an Indian. Survivors of accidental landings are much more likely to adopt the local culture than to spread their own."
And they were not even Aztecs
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The Americas were the last great frontier to be settled by humans, and their peopling remains one of the great mysteries for researchers. This week, two major studies of the DNA of living and ancient people try to settle the big questions about the early settlers: who they were, when they came, and how many waves arrived. But instead of converging on a single consensus picture, the studies, published online in Science and Nature, throw up a new mystery: Both detect in modern Native Americans a trace of DNA related to that of native people from Australia and Melanesia."
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Whites and their Indo-Aryan Indian partners love to lie about the history of Black and African people. This is evident in Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,”
As usual a ton of spam and prejudicial ad hominems. "Indo-Aryan" there are 2 Indians in the 103 authors- which include Metspalu, Bernardo Arriaza,, Bryan Kemp, Richard Villems, Ted Goebel, and Toomas Kivizild, Rippan Malhi, etc. as the senior authors. Thus, all these leaders in the field of population genetics joined together to lie to you. If you elevated all the papers these guys wrote -- You would not have anything to cherry-pick for your unrefereed papers. Please tell us what you google scholar rating is compared to any of the above. Please tell us the impact rating of the "journals" you publish in and the journals they publish in : Nature, Science , American Journal of Human genetics, PNAS etc.
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: "The Americas were the last great frontier to be settled by humans, and their peopling remains one of the great mysteries for researchers. This week, two major studies of the DNA of living and ancient people try to settle the big questions about the early settlers: who they were, when they came, and how many waves arrived. But instead of converging on a single consensus picture, the studies, published online in Science and Nature, throw up a new mystery: Both detect in modern Native Americans a trace of DNA related to that of native people from Australia and Melanesia."
More quotes from this same article that clarify what the actual researchers had in mind.
quote: The team [BOM the Science]examined the genetic differences among their samples to determine how long ago various populations diverged, using the ancient genomes to calibrate this DNA clock. They concluded that all Native Americans, ancient and modern, stem from a single source population in Siberia that split from other Asians around 23,000 years ago and moved into the now drowned land of Beringia. After a stop of up to 8000 years in Beringia—slightly shorter than some researchers have suggested—Science, 28 February 2014, p. 961)—they spread in a single wave into the Americas and then split into northern and southern branches about 13,000 years ago ... .. . When the team sequenced the DNA of 17 individuals from the extinct South American populations with the distinctive skulls, they found no trace of Australo-Melanesian ancestry. “The analysis refutes a very simplistic view of [skull] variation,” comments anthropologist Rolando Gonzalez-Jose of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Puerto Madryn, Argentina.
They [BOM the Nature team] found that some Amazonians, including the Surui people, shared about 1% to 2% of their ancestry with present-day native people from Australia, New Guinea, and the Andaman Islands. Differences in the shared DNA suggest this ancestry did not come directly from these populations, the team concluded, but through a now extinct population they call “Population Y” that may have lived somewhere in East Asia and contributed genes to both very early Paleoamericans and to Australo-Melanesians. Because the Amazonian groups are only distantly related to Population Y, the team concludes that this represents an ancient rather than recent geneticcontribution that arrived in an early “pulse of migration” to the Americas.
And yet Reich says his data, like those of the Science team, clash with the classic Paleoamerican model, which postulates a major, more direct genetic contribution from Australo-Melanesians. In that sense, Reich says, “the two papers are not
in disagreement.”
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Whites and their Indo-Aryan Indian partners love to lie about the history of Black and African people. This is evident in Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,”
As usual a ton of spam and prejudicial ad hominems. "Indo-Aryan" there are 2 Indians in the 103 authors- which include Metspalu, Bernardo Arriaza,, Bryan Kemp, Richard Villems, Ted Goebel, and Toomas Kivizild, Rippan Malhi, etc. as the senior authors. Thus, all these leaders in the field of population genetics joined together to lie to you. If you elevated all the papers these guys wrote -- You would not have anything to cherry-pick for your unrefereed papers. Please tell us what you google scholar rating is compared to any of the above. Please tell us the impact rating of the "journals" you publish in and the journals they publish in : Nature, Science , American Journal of Human genetics, PNAS etc.
Northern Indians have been on a special mission to deny African relationship to Dravidians , Australians and etc., so I don't try to sugar coat their double-speech. The fact remains, that the data in the Raghaven et al article, does not support the authors conclusions. I have also published articles and letters in Science, PNAS, PLoS, Annals of Botany,Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, and BioEssay. .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IronLion: "The Americas were the last great frontier to be settled by humans, and their peopling remains one of the great mysteries for researchers. This week, two major studies of the DNA of living and ancient people try to settle the big questions about the early settlers: who they were, when they came, and how many waves arrived. But instead of converging on a single consensus picture, the studies, published online in Science and Nature, throw up a new mystery: Both detect in modern Native Americans a trace of DNA related to that of native people from Australia and Melanesia."
More quotes from this same article that clarify what the actual researchers had in mind.
quote: The team [BOM the Science]examined the genetic differences among their samples to determine how long ago various populations diverged, using the ancient genomes to calibrate this DNA clock. They concluded that all Native Americans, ancient and modern, stem from a single source population in Siberia that split from other Asians around 23,000 years ago and moved into the now drowned land of Beringia. After a stop of up to 8000 years in Beringia—slightly shorter than some researchers have suggested—Science, 28 February 2014, p. 961)—they spread in a single wave into the Americas and then split into northern and southern branches about 13,000 years ago ... .. . When the team sequenced the DNA of 17 individuals from the extinct South American populations with the distinctive skulls, they found no trace of Australo-Melanesian ancestry. “The analysis refutes a very simplistic view of [skull] variation,” comments anthropologist Rolando Gonzalez-Jose of the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Puerto Madryn, Argentina.
They [BOM the Nature team] found that some Amazonians, including the Surui people, shared about 1% to 2% of their ancestry with present-day native people from Australia, New Guinea, and the Andaman Islands. Differences in the shared DNA suggest this ancestry did not come directly from these populations, the team concluded, but through a now extinct population they call “Population Y” that may have lived somewhere in East Asia and contributed genes to both very early Paleoamericans and to Australo-Melanesians. Because the Amazonian groups are only distantly related to Population Y, the team concludes that this represents an ancient rather than recent geneticcontribution that arrived in an early “pulse of migration” to the Americas.
And yet Reich says his data, like those of the Science team, clash with the classic Paleoamerican model, which postulates a major, more direct genetic contribution from Australo-Melanesians. In that sense, Reich says, “the two papers are not
I have already shown that the secondary article you quote does not agree with the actual findings.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Bernard Ortiz de Motellano you are a white supremacist and racist. You bring here lies to deny the history of the Black Native Americans.
Racist Montellano genotype and craniometrics complement each other. The fact remains that Naia's DNA was contaminated and Kennewick man carries the African haplogroup X. Moreover Kennewick man is more related to Africans, Andamanese and Melanesians, rather than mongoloid Native Americans craniometrically and genetically.
Racist Bernard Ortiz Montellano your white supremacist ideas about the inability of Blacks to travel to America will not be accepted here. Racist Montellano stop trying to steal the history of the Black Native Americans.
As usual outdated information, deliberate obfuscation and lots of ink
1) The possible contamination of Naia's mtDNA is close to zero. The analysis was carried out in 3 different laboratories with the same results. Kemp, B. et al. 2015 ”Response to Comment on “Late Pleistocene human skeleton and mtDNA link Paleoamericans and modern Native Americans” Science 347:835-b
quote: We took precautions to minimize contamination from exogenousDNA [see the supplementary materials (SM) in (2)] and conducted several analyses to assess whether the extracted DNA exhibited expected characteristics of ancient DNA(aDNA) and to confirm haplogroup D1. We made the following observations: (i) this haplogroup was not detected in negative controls; . . . .) (iii) failure to generate X- and Y-chromosome amplicons; ( iv) AluI site loss at nucleotide position (np) 5176, diagnostic of haplogroup D, was confirmed through intra- and interlaboratory replication using three DNA extractions; and (v) hypervariable region sequences from all three extracts yielded differences from the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence(3) consistent with membership in haplogroup D1. Collectively, these observations are consistent with a low copy number and a highly degraded DNA sample, characteristics expected from aDNA (4). Moreover, our results make phylogenetic sense (5).
. . . . . . . If the Hoyo Negro mtDNA results represent contamination, its source is unknown. Because DNA analysis was a key objective of the study, extreme caution was used in sample recovery and transport. Haplogroup D1 is also absent among the collection and laboratory teams. Finally, all samples were submerged in 6% sodium hypochlorite before extraction, a reliable means of surface decontamination (11). The putative contamination could have originated from laboratory reagents, but the reagents used by each laboratory originated from separate lot numbers. Although contamination could affect multiple lots, the probability of observing haplogroup D1 contamination in three independent extracts at two laboratories is low, though not zero. Although it might never be possible to authenticate aDNA from humans with absolute certainty (1), investigators have offered a variety of recommendations for properly conducting this type of research [e.g., (4, 5, 12)]. Prüfer and Meyer’s (1) suggestion is that the authentication of human aDNA should hinge on the presence of hallmark damage signatures (9, 13). However, it is premature to rely so heavily on such damage patterns without a greater appreciation of the variance expected across samples from different environments. Furthermore, although decades of research have suggested that contaminant DNA will be more intact than aDNA, recent work brings this assumption into question (9) and demonstrates that contamination can also take on forms of damage expected of aDNA (14). We, therefore, still regard independent replication as an important criterion for authentication in human ancient DNA studies, despite the recent trend of ignoring this criterion.
You know full-well that you are lying when you deliberately claim that haplogroup X is in Africa, when the haplogroup found in Kennewick was X2a which only exists in the New World.
Reidla, M. et al. 2003 Origin and Diffusion of mtDNA Haplogroup X,” Am J Hum Genet 73(5): 1178–1190
quote:It is notable that X2 includes the two complete Native American X sequences that constitute the distinctive X2a clade, a clade that lacks close relatives in the entire Old World, including Siberia. The position of X2a in the phylogenetic tree suggests an early split from the other X2 clades, likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East.
as usual you misstate the true state of the affairs (or perhaps you are not up-to-date). This from the abstract where the authors write down their conclusions in the paper.
Rasmussen, M. et al 2015 “The ancestry and affiliations of Kennewick Man,” Nature 523: 455
[QUOTE] Kennewick Man, referred to as the AncientOne by Native Americans,is a male human skeleton discovered in Washington state (USA) in 1996 and initially radiocarbon dated to 8,340–9,200 calibrated years before present (BP)1. His population affinities have been the subject of scientific debate and legal controversy. Based on an initial study of cranial morphology it was asserted that Kennewick Man was neither Native American nor closely related to the claimant Plateau tribes of the Pacific Northwest, who claimed ancestral relationship and requested repatriation under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). . .Subsequent craniometric analysis affirmed Kennewick Man to be more closely related to circumpacific groups such as the Ainu and Polynesians than he is to modern Native Americans2. In order to resolve Kennewick Man’s ancestry and affiliations, we have sequenced his genome to 13 coverage and compared it to worldwide genomic data including for the Ainu and Polynesians. We find that Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide. Among the Native American groups for whom genome-wide data are available for comparison, several seem to be descended from a population closely related to that of Kennewick Man, including the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville), one of the five tribes claiming Kennewick Man. We revisit the cranial analyses and find that, as opposed to genome-wide comparisons, it is not possible on that basis to affiliate Kennewick Man to specific contemporary groups. We therefore conclude based on genetic comparisons that Kennewick Man shows continuity with Native North Americans over at least the last eight millennia.[QUOTE]
Notice nowhere is Africa mentioned
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Whites and their Indo-Aryan Indian partners love to lie about the history of Black and African people. This is evident in Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,”
As usual a ton of spam and prejudicial ad hominems. "Indo-Aryan" there are 2 Indians in the 103 authors- which include Metspalu, Bernardo Arriaza,, Bryan Kemp, Richard Villems, Ted Goebel, and Toomas Kivizild, Rippan Malhi, etc. as the senior authors. Thus, all these leaders in the field of population genetics joined together to lie to you. If you elevated all the papers these guys wrote -- You would not have anything to cherry-pick for your unrefereed papers. Please tell us what you google scholar rating is compared to any of the above. Please tell us the impact rating of the "journals" you publish in and the journals they publish in : Nature, Science , American Journal of Human genetics, PNAS etc.
Northern Indians have been on a special mission to deny African relationship to Dravidians , Australians and etc., so I don't try to sugar coat their double-speech. The fact remains, that the data in the Raghaven et al article, does not support the authors conclusions. I have also published articles and letters in Science, PNAS, PLoS, Annals of Botany,Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, and BioEssay. .
So there is a world wide conspiracy by the leading iights of population research to deny Dravidians their African roots-- any evidence exempt that this would not support your hobby horse?
You know full well that 1)what you sent in were NOT articles but letters of comment on someone else's paper in that journal, 2) you also know that these type of communication are Not peer reviewed. Searching this group will bring out the letters I got from these journals affirming my point.
Again what is your citation rate in google scholar, what is the impact rating of the open-source journals you publish in?
Posts: 833 | From: Austin, TX | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Whites and their Indo-Aryan Indian partners love to lie about the history of Black and African people. This is evident in Raghavan, M. et al 2015 “Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans,”
As usual a ton of spam and prejudicial ad hominems. "Indo-Aryan" there are 2 Indians in the 103 authors- which include Metspalu, Bernardo Arriaza,, Bryan Kemp, Richard Villems, Ted Goebel, and Toomas Kivizild, Rippan Malhi, etc. as the senior authors. Thus, all these leaders in the field of population genetics joined together to lie to you. If you elevated all the papers these guys wrote -- You would not have anything to cherry-pick for your unrefereed papers. Please tell us what you google scholar rating is compared to any of the above. Please tell us the impact rating of the "journals" you publish in and the journals they publish in : Nature, Science , American Journal of Human genetics, PNAS etc.
Northern Indians have been on a special mission to deny African relationship to Dravidians , Australians and etc., so I don't try to sugar coat their double-speech. The fact remains, that the data in the Raghaven et al article, does not support the authors conclusions. I have also published articles and letters in Science, PNAS, PLoS, Annals of Botany,Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, and BioEssay. .
So there is a world wide conspiracy by the leading iights of population research to deny Dravidians their African roots-- any evidence exempt that this would not support your hobby horse?
You know full well that 1)what you sent in were NOT articles but letters of comment on someone else's paper in that journal, 2) you also know that these type of communication are Not peer reviewed. Searching this group will bring out the letters I got from these journals affirming my point.
Again what is your citation rate in google scholar, what is the impact rating of the open-source journals you publish in?
Yes. Northern East Indians are mainly hindutva (Hindu Nationalists), who are trying to claim that they have always been in India; eventhough they only arrive in India in 1200 BC, using Grey Pottery. Lead by Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Hindutva geneticists are attempting to use genetics to re-write the history of India.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic